I think the point is that this confirms that too often Sumlin let the players run things and he just tried to stay out of their waywheelz said:
If he pulls the trigger on Stidham we probably still have Sumlin coaching. Is that what you would have wanted?
Bob Loblaws Law Blog said:
He was gun shy after ****ing up the Allen/Murray situation.
jrico2727 said:
I still have never understood how Baylor could have Stidham on the roster and Mond committed, but it was inconceivable that the could both come to A&M.
No possible way. For one, there were much deeper issues than QB play. But point number two, he had Allen and failed. He had Kyler Murray and failed. Maybe the third time would have been the charm, but he has given no evidence that he can win with a talented QB. Hell, even Johnny's second season, which was statistically better for him, was an absolute dud.wheelz said:
If he pulls the trigger on Stidham we probably still have Sumlin coaching. Is that what you would have wanted?
this x 100Bunk Moreland said:
glad Sumlin gambled on 3 recruits and potentially losing them vs. recruiting Stidham.
Because if he would have been smart and gone after Stidham, he'd still be here and we wouldn't have Jimbo.
We probably would have beat Auburn too and possibly Miss. St....bowl outcome would have been different too. Could have been 10-2 or 9-3 tbhBalrog said:
Stidham was eligible to go pro after just one year, and he felt like Stidham was leaning that way. So Sumlin decided to put his stock in young guys that would be around for multiple years. That's why he didn't pursue Stidham. I think Sumlin felt like he learned a lesson with only having Trevor for one year. It's great if you're setup for a one year push (think baseball free-agent), but if you're not there, it's better to plan for the future. In the end, I don't think it mattered who we had a QB, we were still going to fail last year. We'd have won the UCLA game with Stidham, but that's it.
I don't think so. Ags got rolled in those games. It wouldn't have mattered who was under center. We had no answer on defense.Saint Pablo said:We probably would have beat Auburn too and possibly Miss. St....bowl outcome would have been different too. Could have been 10-2 or 9-3 tbhBalrog said:
Stidham was eligible to go pro after just one year, and he felt like Stidham was leaning that way. So Sumlin decided to put his stock in young guys that would be around for multiple years. That's why he didn't pursue Stidham. I think Sumlin felt like he learned a lesson with only having Trevor for one year. It's great if you're setup for a one year push (think baseball free-agent), but if you're not there, it's better to plan for the future. In the end, I don't think it mattered who we had a QB, we were still going to fail last year. We'd have won the UCLA game with Stidham, but that's it.
A big part of the reason we got rolled by Auburn was Stidham...if Auburn does not have him and we do, things are way different IMOBalrog said:I don't think so. Ags got rolled in those games. It wouldn't have mattered who was under center. We had no answer on defense.Saint Pablo said:We probably would have beat Auburn too and possibly Miss. St....bowl outcome would have been different too. Could have been 10-2 or 9-3 tbhBalrog said:
Stidham was eligible to go pro after just one year, and he felt like Stidham was leaning that way. So Sumlin decided to put his stock in young guys that would be around for multiple years. That's why he didn't pursue Stidham. I think Sumlin felt like he learned a lesson with only having Trevor for one year. It's great if you're setup for a one year push (think baseball free-agent), but if you're not there, it's better to plan for the future. In the end, I don't think it mattered who we had a QB, we were still going to fail last year. We'd have won the UCLA game with Stidham, but that's it.
Saint Pablo said:A big part of the reason we got rolled by Auburn was Stidham...if Auburn does not have him and we do, things are way different IMOBalrog said:I don't think so. Ags got rolled in those games. It wouldn't have mattered who was under center. We had no answer on defense.Saint Pablo said:We probably would have beat Auburn too and possibly Miss. St....bowl outcome would have been different too. Could have been 10-2 or 9-3 tbhBalrog said:
Stidham was eligible to go pro after just one year, and he felt like Stidham was leaning that way. So Sumlin decided to put his stock in young guys that would be around for multiple years. That's why he didn't pursue Stidham. I think Sumlin felt like he learned a lesson with only having Trevor for one year. It's great if you're setup for a one year push (think baseball free-agent), but if you're not there, it's better to plan for the future. In the end, I don't think it mattered who we had a QB, we were still going to fail last year. We'd have won the UCLA game with Stidham, but that's it.
Precisely!FishingAggie said:Saint Pablo said:A big part of the reason we got rolled by Auburn was Stidham...if Auburn does not have him and we do, things are way different IMOBalrog said:I don't think so. Ags got rolled in those games. It wouldn't have mattered who was under center. We had no answer on defense.Saint Pablo said:We probably would have beat Auburn too and possibly Miss. St....bowl outcome would have been different too. Could have been 10-2 or 9-3 tbhBalrog said:
Stidham was eligible to go pro after just one year, and he felt like Stidham was leaning that way. So Sumlin decided to put his stock in young guys that would be around for multiple years. That's why he didn't pursue Stidham. I think Sumlin felt like he learned a lesson with only having Trevor for one year. It's great if you're setup for a one year push (think baseball free-agent), but if you're not there, it's better to plan for the future. In the end, I don't think it mattered who we had a QB, we were still going to fail last year. We'd have won the UCLA game with Stidham, but that's it.
This. Lol. People don't see it.
We take stidham ...auburn has no one at qb. Zilch
It was a win/win. We get a qb and weaken a rival.
Sumlin ended his career over stidham and the Kyle/kyler debacle.
You guys should go back to the archives. These exact same threads are posted in 2017.
Even looch had a post saying we weren't interested.
Proven? Dude had 3 career starts at Baylor. Doesn't sound "proven" to me.yell_on_6th st said:
Just more confirmation to what we all knew: Sumlin is dumb as dirt. JFF made his career, he should have topped out as a position coach, maybe.
Good lord, turn down a proven qb with all the measurables, Sumlin is an idiot, good riddance.
We gave up 500 yards on defense to Auburn. Over 250 of them rushing yards. Unless Stidham also played linebacker for A&M, we were screwed no matter who played QB for Auburn.FishingAggie said:Saint Pablo said:A big part of the reason we got rolled by Auburn was Stidham...if Auburn does not have him and we do, things are way different IMOBalrog said:I don't think so. Ags got rolled in those games. It wouldn't have mattered who was under center. We had no answer on defense.Saint Pablo said:We probably would have beat Auburn too and possibly Miss. St....bowl outcome would have been different too. Could have been 10-2 or 9-3 tbhBalrog said:
Stidham was eligible to go pro after just one year, and he felt like Stidham was leaning that way. So Sumlin decided to put his stock in young guys that would be around for multiple years. That's why he didn't pursue Stidham. I think Sumlin felt like he learned a lesson with only having Trevor for one year. It's great if you're setup for a one year push (think baseball free-agent), but if you're not there, it's better to plan for the future. In the end, I don't think it mattered who we had a QB, we were still going to fail last year. We'd have won the UCLA game with Stidham, but that's it.
This. Lol. People don't see it.
We take stidham ...auburn has no one at qb. Zilch
It was a win/win. We get a qb and weaken a rival.
Sumlin ended his career over stidham and the Kyle/kyler debacle.
You guys should go back to the archives. These exact same threads are posted in 2017.
Even looch had a post saying we weren't interested.
The passing game helps to open up the ground game...if they had some no name at quarterback who did not throw for 250 and rush for 30 like Stidham, the rushing stats likely would have looked much different IMO.Balrog said:We gave up 500 yards on defense to Auburn. Over 250 of them rushing yards. Unless Stidham also played linebacker for A&M, we were screwed no matter who played QB for Auburn.FishingAggie said:Saint Pablo said:A big part of the reason we got rolled by Auburn was Stidham...if Auburn does not have him and we do, things are way different IMOBalrog said:I don't think so. Ags got rolled in those games. It wouldn't have mattered who was under center. We had no answer on defense.Saint Pablo said:We probably would have beat Auburn too and possibly Miss. St....bowl outcome would have been different too. Could have been 10-2 or 9-3 tbhBalrog said:
Stidham was eligible to go pro after just one year, and he felt like Stidham was leaning that way. So Sumlin decided to put his stock in young guys that would be around for multiple years. That's why he didn't pursue Stidham. I think Sumlin felt like he learned a lesson with only having Trevor for one year. It's great if you're setup for a one year push (think baseball free-agent), but if you're not there, it's better to plan for the future. In the end, I don't think it mattered who we had a QB, we were still going to fail last year. We'd have won the UCLA game with Stidham, but that's it.
This. Lol. People don't see it.
We take stidham ...auburn has no one at qb. Zilch
It was a win/win. We get a qb and weaken a rival.
Sumlin ended his career over stidham and the Kyle/kyler debacle.
You guys should go back to the archives. These exact same threads are posted in 2017.
Even looch had a post saying we weren't interested.